Search results

In your post #48, what does “transitional water baptism” mean? It seems to imply that spiritual baptism has in some way superseded water baptism. Have I understood you correctly? If so, what support for that assertion do you find in that first verse, Eph 4:5, which uses the word “baptism”...

We're in full agreement on both points. No doubt about it.

Thank you, @biblestudent78, for your long and carefully reasoned reply to my question. There are just two further points that I would like to hear your opinion on, if you don't mind. First, I was never taught to believe in either inerrancy or infallibility, and that has made no detectable...

Famously, there’s that apparent discrepancy or “tension” between John and the Synoptics on the date of the Last Supper and whether or not it was a Passover meal. Is that a question of inerrancy or of infallibility? Or both at once?

You’re just giving us more information about yourself: you’re telling us what subjects you find interesting and what subjects you don’t find interesting. You’re not making any contribution to the discussion about Daniel.

I once heard these wise words spoken by a Greek Orthodox priest: "You can teach but you can't force people to learn." Does that warning suggest anything to you, @shyamuraix?

No, not exactly. The point we were trying to settle was the function of the conjunction “for” (gar) in v. 21, apparently indicating a connection of some kind with the preceding verse. You need to bear in mind that the issue being addressed at the Jerusalem meeting was not a theological question...

In my post #7133, addressed to you, I said: Let’s see if I have now grasped the point you’re trying to make. “Because there are synagogues in every ciry, we need to send a letter to all of them communicating our decision.” Is that it? That suggestion of mine at least makes some sense. All...

They're not translations, they're transliterations. They are different people's attempts to reproduce the name in the Roman alphabet. Hebrew is not written in the Roman alphabet. It's written in the Hebrew alphabet.

If you look at the link I gave at the foot of my post #4, you’ll see that H3068 is also Strong’s number for Yahweh or Yahveh. Jehovah, Yehovah, Yahweh, Yahveh ― they’re all alternative transliterations of the same Hebrew name יְהוָֹה

‘‘God’s theology”? I’m not sure what that means. Is God a theologian? The usual meaning of “theologian,” at least as applied to the modern world, is someone who has completed a degree in theology. That’s something God never needed to do. Dispensationalism has to do with theology, obviously, but...

Have you considered spelling your own name "Aharon," matching the Hebrew form? "Aaron," cutting out the h, originated as the Greek form, like "Iesous" for both Yehoshua and Yeshua.

A correction to my first post. I missed the five-minute editing deadline. The year 1966 refers to the first English edition. The first French edition in one-volume form had appeared several years earlier, in the late fifties.

@shyamuraix, you can read the 1966 Jerusalem Bible here, at Internet Archve. The name Yahweh appears for the first time in Gen 2:4. https://archive.org/details/thejerusalembible1966/page/n35/mode/1up

I’m sorry to disappoint you but the name Yahweh most certainly is in the Old Testament. In fact it occurs there more than 6,000 times. Given that the total number of verses in the OT is a little over 27,000, that means that, on the average, the name Yahweh is found once in every four or five...

Evidently it matters to you, and that’s okay, everybody is allowed to have their preferences. Similarly. those posters who find the dating of Daniel a question that matters are allowed to have their preferences, too.

Look at the thread title. It says "the entire Bible."

You can read Jesus' own answer to your question: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2024%3A15&version=ESV

What is your personal verdict in the Daniel case?

Thank you for your reply. I’d like to clarify that, like you, I don’t have a single preferred Bible translation that I use all the time. On the contrary, I find it useful to keep a wary eye on the possibility that, in any given case, there is quite likely to be an alternative English equivalent...